You may have noticed in the past few months the increasing number of BBC presenters who are non-white, a disproportionately large number of them obviously Muslim. Apparently this is because the BBC’s output must reflect the ethnic make-up of Britain….BME people will supposedly only watch other BME people on the BBC. The ever rising number of Muslims is of course the BBC’s attempt to normalise Islam. Let’s have a few Far Right, Fascist supporting presenters then….surely they also must be represented on the diverse BBC.
A BBC spokesman explained: ‘Everyone pays for the BBC so it’s important we reflect all audiences. ‘
Let’s normalise Fascism too.
“Let’s normalise Fascism too.”
The BBC has already got there, along with their partners in the Labour Party and Guardian.
But if you’re reasonably intelligent, why do you have to believe anything the BBC spurts?
I’ve been around long enough to disregard the opinions of paid state broadcasters, they don’t really figure in my way of life.
Because the BBC makes the weather in this country. An individual might take no notice of it but millions do. Through its relentless espousal of far Left ideas it makes it possible for nonsensical laws like ZaNuLabour’s ‘hate crime’ legislation to be muscled onto the statute book.
Indeed. The BBC keep talking about the rise of the Far Right. Let’s give them a voice!
Yes, they have to normalise Islam. Why isn’t it necessary to ‘normalise’ Hindus , Quakers or Jews?
And why do police numbers have to reflect the ethnicity of their manor? I live in a white area and it wouldn’t bother me if the first officer to respond to my 999 call was black, brown or a Quaker. Just as long as he (or she!) could do the job.
If immigrant Muslims can commit mass murder against the very people who have been kind enough to let them into the country, and take advantage of Welfare, then acting to favour Islam and Muslims, is a relatively minor matter.
Some years ago, a Muslim immigration judge was found to be favouring Muslim immigrants. In Muslim countries, judges, police forces and all authority, favour Muslims over non-Muslims. Why should one expect any different from Muslims in the UK.
Therefore, a Muslim policeman or woman would worry me, as I know that Muslims are obliged to follow Allah’s law, rather then human law.
Of course we now have the (almost certainly illegal) BBC job adverts where only BME people can apply. On R4’s Media Show I have heard the BBC defending their mission to have a BME workforce that is in line with the national average. They should refer to their own More Or Less programme to discover that this is folly. Their workforce will be older than average, so trying to achieve an average through positive discrimination is bound to tip the balance very unfavourably against white graduates. In a demographic where the BME percentage is rising, this policy could effectively shut the door quite firmly on white job applicants for the foreseeable future.
Did I say that this sort of positive discrimination is almost certainly illegal?
It’s directly illegal. The Equalities Act was passed on the express demand that it make all discrimination illegal. Of course, Harman only introduced the bill because she wanted it as an excuse to legalise affirmative action, to put white men at a disadvantage (though not her husband or son – they only ever apply these rules to people outside the ruling class and their families), but luckily Labour were kicked out before this could happen and we instead got an equality act that *gasp!* actually demands equal treatment of all applicants.
Of course, this doesn’t prevent discrimination because people are human, and without mandatory quotas imposed by the state (thank goodness) you can never be certain that everyone is in a position they deserve. But the social engineering alternative is much worse, not least because it would yet again make a deliberate attempt to disadvantage white British working class men if passed by Labour, but because it’d the opposite of meritocracy.
This however hasn’t prevented the BBC from “redressing the balance” with racist hiring practices, since they’re above the law as things stand. It would be Ok if they afforded this same obsession with “diversity” to what matters most – diversity of views and opinions – but instead they have deliberately limited and homogenised this into a leftist echo chamber.
Sadly its not illegal. It is referred to as positive discrimination;
What is positive action when
it applies to recruitment and
promotion?
The new positive action provisions mean that it
is not unlawful to recruit or promote a candidate
who is of equal merit to another candidate, if the
employer reasonably thinks the candidate:
•has a protected characteristic that is under
-represented in the workforce; or
•that people with that characteristic suffer a
disadvantage connected to that characteristic.
However, positive action does not allow an
employer to appoint a less suitable candidate
just because that candidate has a protected
characteristic that is under-represented or
disadvantaged.
Extracted from; https://www.york.ac.uk/admin/eo/Positive%20Action%20in%20Recruitment%20and%20Promotion%20Guide%201.pdf
If you’re white and particularly a white male heterosexual you’re at the bottom of the pile and can expect nothing.
“The new positive action provisions mean that it is not unlawful to recruit or promote a candidate who is of equal merit to another candidate”
This is not relevant to the BBC adverts for jobs where white people need not apply. In this case white people who might be better qualified are being discriminated against.
The BBC adverts were almost certainly illegal. It’s simply that they have not been tested in court.
I agree with you completely. What is required is a white person with relevant qualifications to apply and then take the rejection to the High Court.
The question is who has the financial backing to fight this in the High Court? The BBC has an unlimited budget thanks to Parliament guaranteeing them the legal right to extort a tax by force from television and computer based device owners.
They pretty much know no one is going to challenge them on this. So you have a double whammy; An protection racket sanctioned by the State and legal protection by the State through a lack of proper legal challenge procedures. If we had a proper Constitution and related court this wouldn’t happen.
Even if the person was in a Union, would a Union fight the BBC over this, I doubt it as the Unions are part of the problem?
I live in Cumbria which is a big county with a low population, and our population is 96.5% White British yet this didn’t stop our fire service advertising for staff who were not white men, only non-white men (or women) and white women could apply to go for interviews, and this was a few years ago.
In the whole of britain the white population is 85%
muslims 3%
Mackers – you surprise me. I imagined that Muslims accounted for about 90% judging by the amount of coverage they get.
i know a pakistani, guess what their plumber, builder, mechanic etc etc etc just happens to be?
frankly the only non brits round here are polish, im disgusted to see not one news reader is polish, surely 1 in 60 beeb people should be polish
Kaiser, a few years ago the left came up with a concept called ‘VEM’ – Visible Ethnic Minorities. (Google it if you don’t believe me). Basically someone who is dark-skinned trumps someone who isn’t in the PC stakes. So, for example, a Pakistani is worth more than a Pole because he or she is ‘visible’ (due to skin colour) and thus has to be treated differently, despite both being ethnic minorities.
It’s always amusing to watch the left get into a tizzy over people who don’t fit the stereotypes. I used to know a white Zimbabwean gentleman who lived in Britain, who said he always enjoyed the reaction when he turned up at job interviews and they realised he was white!
Wonderful news for some. Engineers have created software “that parses through every line and frame in a movie how much to determine exactly how much screen time female characters are given compared to their male counterparts.”
Apparently the project was spearheaded by the Geena Davis Institution Gender in the Media. The aim being, no doubt, to ensure equal representation is given to females. Up to the microsecond.
But the news gets better. Engineering professor Shri Narayanan says “Our bigger road map is to look at different representations in media.”
Err does that mean what I think it means?
I saw the article, which came from the Washington Post, in a local rag. I suppose we are all meant to cheer as with every technological progression. To me this is another example of the rise of totalitarianism. A society where even the entertainment is checked for diversity and appropriate quotas of lines per character.
” This is not meant to be something that limits creativity. It’s meant to be a tool that helps in the creative process,” said Hartwig Adam, a Google staff engineer.
Crikey Dick! How on Earth can something like that help creativity? What flaming planet are these people on? Who the hell would welcome software like that which could be extended into TV and eventually into novels? What sort of people want fiction scrutinized to that extent I asked myself?! Then I found myself
answering ”the BBC of course”. They will be ecstatic.
O brave new world.
Yesterday, BBC’s coverage of the junior doctor’s dipute, showed a group of junior doctors. Among that group was one hijabed woman. No prizes which person the camera focused on.
If one considers professionals in ethnic minorities, Indians (Hindus ) must be the largest group. Its also known, that Muslims are at the bottom in educational rankings.
So how is it that the BBC shows mostly Muslims?
Not the BBC I know but ‘National Treasure’ with Robbie Coltrane on ITV, within two minutes of the first episode we see his grandchildren.. both black, his lawyer also black. The head police woman investigating him.. yes, also black. Surely an over representation here of an ethnic minority!
Here’s the BBC license ad that’s on at the moment…
It looks like this advert was made for the South African Broadcasting Corporation or the Brazilian one.
Maybe they are getting at a certain minority for not paying the licence fee?
Despite the 85%+ white population of this country (2011 census) the only all white grouping shown appears to be three young teenage girls dancing.
Certain viewers in Rotherham, Blackburn, and Bolton must be delighted.
And this from the same state broadcaster that employed one J Savile for decades.
Faux pas? Incompetence? Appalling bad taste? Or the prevailing mind set?
All the people watching BBC on thos ad, are the privileged minority that doesn’t have to pay for watching BBC. No wonder they are happy.
I read a story about the Al Beeb pro BAME recruitment policy. It was described in the context that the bBBC viewership under-represenred the BAME population so the recruitment was their attempt to change this.
I therefore await the introduction of non-English language prime time programmes, since as we all know, many Asian women not only cannot speak English but are prevented from learning.
Needless to say, this fact seems strangely to be ignored by the pro-discrimination Al Beeb policy.
Whenever the BBC interviews anyone in the armed forces or police or a plumber, bricklayer, pilot, engineer, welder, mechanic or apprentice or anyjob that is 99% males they ALWAYS interview a pretty young girl. Men are only interviewed if there are no girls. They go overboard with equality as they go overboard with race.
Sky recruit using Diversity Jobs, because apparently ‘diverse’ workspaces are better and more profitable, although they don’t specify how.
http://www.diversityjobs.co.uk/cm/about